Two more articles on Judith Regan.
The first is a Seattle PI article where Judith is alledged to believe in an zesty Zionist Conspiracy. Surely getting fired had nothing to do with the bad press and crazed attitude- blame the Jews. They're out there and they're are not eating bacon. GASP.
The second is from the NY Times and is simply an interesting and funny reading on the situation.
Publisher allegedly cited 'Jewish cabal'
By HILLEL ITALIE
AP NATIONAL WRITER
Regan, was fired Friday, Dec. 15, 2006, her sensational, scandalous tenure at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. ending with the tersest of announcements.
NEW YORK -- In an explosive telephone argument that led to her firing, publisher Judith Regan allegedly complained of a "Jewish cabal" against her in the book industry and stated that "Of all people, Jews should know about ganging up, finding common enemies and telling the big lie."
A spokesman for Regan's former employer, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., told The Associated Press on Monday that the remarks were based on notes taken by HarperCollins attorney Mark Jackson, with whom Regan was discussing the future of a controversial new novel about baseball star Mickey Mantle.
The spokesman, Andrew Butcher, released the comments in response to a threatened libel suit from Regan's legal representative, Hollywood attorney Bert Fields, who had called earlier reports of anti-Semitic remarks "completely untrue" and added that the publisher "didn't have an anti-Semitic bone in her body."
If you told me that Judith Regan said something nasty about Jewish babies, I could only assume that she was implying that black babies are less stringy and have a less-like-chicken, more-like-pork flavor. I wouldn't put anything past this woman.
Since 1994, Regan had headed the ReganBooks imprint at News Corp.'s HarperCollins. She was fired Friday.
The allegations first emerged earlier Monday when The New York Times, citing two unnamed News Corps officials, referred to unspecified anti-Semitic comments.
Regan, one of of the book world's most successful publishers, already had tense relations with HarperCollins and News Corp. Last month, Murdoch cancelled "If I Did It," her planned O.J. Simpson book and Fox television interview.
Simpson's book, said to have described how he theoretically would have committed the murders of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, had been scheduled for release Nov. 30 following the airing of a two-part Simpson interview.
Simpson was acquitted of murder in 1995 but later found liable for the killings in a wrongful-death suit filed by the Goldman family.
This Time, Judith Regan Did It
By DAVID CARR
Published: December 18, 2006
When the News Corporation killed Judith Regan’s multimedia rollout of O. J. Simpson’s “hypothetical confession,” Rupert Murdoch called the project “ill-conceived.”
The phrase he should have used was “ill-received.”
The “If I Did It” book and television package was shelved not because it was in bad taste or because it was bad for the culture at large, but because it was bad for business. The News Corporation, after all, was riding with Ms. Regan every step of the way as she bolted together the multiplatform deal for “If I Did It.” It was only after an outcry that included two dozen Fox affiliates that the HarperCollins project was junked.
And now Ms. Regan’s career at the News Corporation is in the same trash bin. Why now?
No one woke up Friday morning and discovered that Ms. Regan had bad, if lucrative, taste. But when her O. J. Simpson deal went south, she refused to go away quietly even though Mr. Murdoch had already taken a bullet, then continued to complain that she was being undermined long after the story had quieted down.
The News Corporation had profited handsomely from Ms. Regan’s tendency to shoot from the hip, but when she started firing inside the corral, well then, that was another matter.
If she did it, here’s how: Ms. Regan first responded to public opprobrium over the Simpson project with an unhinged eight-page defense of her interview. And then, after the plug was pulled on Nov. 21, she failed to accept the decision. (When Mr. Murdoch says something is dead, put away the paddles and pull up the hearse.)
Instead she railed against HarperCollins, the News Corporation book division that owns her ReganBooks imprint, while taping her Sirius Satellite Radio show, according to Ron Hogan, an editor at GalleyCat, which is a book-oriented blog. And finally, she made offensive remarks in a phone call to one of the company’s lawyers on Friday, according to a report in The Los Angeles Times.
“I think someone looked a little bit down the road and saw train wrecks everywhere,” said a HarperCollins executive who declined attribution because the case might end up in litigation.
That someone was Jane Friedman, the head of HarperCollins, who gave Ms. Regan the gate last Friday night in a two-sentence statement. It was made in a hurry — there were no expressed accommodations for the authors and 40 employees of the ReganBooks imprint — which suggests that the decision was made in a hurry, as well. (The company said on Saturday that the division will continue operations under Cal Morgan, the editorial director of ReganBooks.)
None of this was part of the plan when Ms. Regan moved her hugely successful publishing operation to Los Angeles this year. In announcing the move, she suggested she was switching to the left coast to form a literary salon of sorts, seeking out interesting folks from the entertainment and publishing worlds to form a kind of “cultural center.”
In therapeutic circles, her move to Los Angeles is called a geographic cure. A person up against the consequences of bad decisions and bad judgment — her affair with Bernard B. Kerik, the disgraced former police commissioner and ReganBooks author, was made all the more interesting to the media when it emerged that she was one of two women on the side — decides to switch ZIP codes for a fresh start.
Instead, she found O.J.
Ms. Regan’s strategic shift to California put her more closely in touch with an entertainment culture that was of a piece with her approach to publishing. Her big television project, after all, was “Growing Up Gotti.” Those who found “If I Did It” to be a patently offensive title need only remember that she also published the very successful “How to Make Love Like a Porn Star.” (It might have been subtitled, “Making do with vacant eyes, stage moans, and anonymous co-stars.”)
But then, Ms. Regan has actually been in the celebrity business her whole career, with her ability to sell the tatty and salacious elements of contemporary culture. She formed those skills as a reporter for The National Enquirer, but in a world where many office workers spend their days surfing for a shot of Britney Spears sans panties, that work history was a credential, not a knock.
Ms. Regan always lived her public life as if it were one big MySpace page, which she filled with outrageous personal and professional behavior and intemperate words. Part of it seemed like shtick, but she seemed to cross a line bordering on mania after her motives in interviewing Mr. Simpson were questioned.
First, she issued a statement that compared her own alleged victimization as a battered woman with that of the murdered Nicole Brown Simpson. “The men who lied and cheated and beat me — they were all there in the room. And the people who denied it, they were there, too.” (It sounded a little crowded in there.)
Instead of saying sorry about that, Ms. Regan went ballistic in a statement that read like an autopsy on an open deadly wound. Her nonapology apology approached absurdity, a biblical Act of Contrition written (at times) in the voice of a young girl.
“I made the decision to publish this book, and to sit face to face with the killer, because I wanted him, and the men who broke my heart and your hearts, to tell the truth, to confess their sins, to do penance and to amend their lives. Amen.”
Ms. Regan then reflected on her time with Mr. Simpson: “Thought process disorder. No empathy. Malignant narcissism,” she wrote as if she had been looking in a mirror, not conducting an interview.
Her decisions made quick enemies of almost everyone, including some of her colleagues at the News Corporation. To his credit, Bill O’Reilly (a man who knows a thing or two about riding out bad press) called the Simpson project “simply indefensible.” Even Geraldo Rivera’s journalistic principles were offended.
She might survive those two but, in 2006, Mr. Murdoch is another matter. He has done a fine job recently of repositioning himself as media baron who is both a friend of Hillary Rodham Clinton and yet again a pioneer in the evolving media space. One of the cardinal rules in business is to protect the king, but after the Simpson affair, he found himself dragged into the muck of his tabloid past.
In The Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten invoked that past, assailing the “predatory Australian-born media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who has devoted his life to making money by making sure that news and entertainment are as coarse and vulgar as can be imagined in as many places as possible.” That kind of public reframing, combined with Ms. Friedman’s antipathy for a renegade West Coast office, made Ms. Regan’s firing a matter of when, not if.
Ms. Regan will change addresses, but not disappear. The best-seller list in any given week attests to the fact that she has a talent for identifying and filling consumer needs. And it is the job of media corporations to satisfy the market without regard to taste or rectitude. That’s no altogether a bad thing. We wouldn’t have “The Simpsons” — another News Corporation product — without it.
But stars, even the biggest-earning ones, become expendable when they begin to embarrass someone besides themselves. Just ask Tom Cruise.
